Talk:Schindler's List/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Schindler's List. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Weaver, John (2005). "Finding God in the Holocaust: Schindler's List". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.

PBS airing

The "Controversies" section of this article states that the PBS airing of the film ran "without Spielberg's prologue". I know for a fact that this is not true, as I have a VHS copy of the PBS airing that quite clearly shows Spielberg's introduction to the movie.

Malaysia

Should be something on how it was initially banned in Malaysia, with the initially-stated reason for the ban being something along the lines of "It presents Jews in too favorable a light"... AnonMoos 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Source? I better find something on that in my papers. Alientraveller 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remember it from ca. 1993 media coverage at the time... AnonMoos 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Schindler's List (1993) - was initially banned for being too sympathetic towards Jews (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia#Films_banned_.5B22.5D)

BBC: "Five years ago Malaysia's censors also initially refused to screen Steven Spielberg's Holocaust epic Schindler's List on the grounds that it was sympathetic to Jews." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/392036.stm)

NYT: It was Malaysia that initially banned the film as "propaganda with the purpose of asking for sympathy." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DD163EF934A35757C0A962958260)

Note that it was the same Mr. Mahathir that stirred controversy on October 16, 2003, by the statement that "the Jews rule the world by proxy."Thaum1el (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead could be expanded? Any ideas what to include? LordHarris 09:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave expanding the lead until we got as much possible information into the article, but certainly mention can be made of the film shooting on real-life locations in Poland, and the hand-held cinematography. Alientraveller 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok makes sense. LordHarris 10:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Little Girl in a Red Coat

from the article: "Though the film is primarily shot in black-and-white, red was used to distinguish a little girl in a coat. Later in the film, she is seen dead. Her name was Roma Ligocka, and she published a book called The Girl in the Red Coat: A Memoir."

Am I right in thinking that the girl in the movie is fictional and who Roma Ligocka is a holocaust survivor that saw the movie and then borrowed the image of the girl to tell her own story? The article seems to be saying that the girl in the movie is meant to portray Ligocka. Bygmesterfinn (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the whole paragraph, you'll understand Spielberg took inspiration from the real-life person, and killed her off to symbolise what could have been lost. Alientraveller (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that that's what the paragraph says, and that's also what is cited source says, but I'm questioning the accuracy of the claim from the source that this woman was an inspiration for the girl in the movie. I've not read Ligocka's book, but my understanding is that Ligocka does not make that claim. See, for example: http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/schindlerslist.php. Bygmesterfinn (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Chasingthefrog a reliable source? Alientraveller (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of foreshadowing is actually well known in American cinema. For example, in the original Star Trek series, any new crew members with a red shirt inevitably wound up dead by the end of the episode. Zaphraud (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing Image description

[[Image:Schindlers list red dress.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Schindler sees a little girl wearing a red coat, who is later killed]] I believe the description in the image box of the Girl in Red Coat need to be edited by deleting the term "who is later killed". I had done that but it got reverted. So I am giving my reasons here. I do agree as an encyclopedia, wikipedia can have spoilers with no warnings, but we should see the purpose also. For those who haven't seen the film that description is a terrible spoiler seriously diluting the feelings when Oskar see her deadbody.I was such an unlucky person! Also for those who haven't seen the film, the girl is just a character who gets killed in the holocaust. There is not much of information in it. For those who have seen the film, they already know that the girl gets killed and there is no significance for those words in that way either. Please refer to the imagebox of the corpse in Saw (film). If it had the description "which is not actually a deadbody and is the psycho himself" or something, how terrible it would be. I am changing the description of the Girl in Red Coat image so as to state that its the only instance of colour in B&W scenes in the film--Anoopkn (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alientraveller (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody changed the description to "one of the few" from "one and only". I think its the only color instance in the B&W scenes in the film. Pls check & modify the description, if needed--Anoopkn (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the only use of color in the film. Near the end of the film a candle flame in a religious service is also in color. I question the citation needed comment after the line that says that it is one of the few uses of color in the film. Anyone who watches the film can see this is true; why would anyone need to have this verified with a reliable source. The movie itself is a verifiable source! Warm regards, Rick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.216.102 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 February 2009

Music

"Oyf'n Pripetshok" is not a folk song. It was written and composed by Mark Warshawsky (1840-1907), aka Warshavsky. See http://jhom.com/topics/letters/songs.html and http://www.ibiblio.org/yiddish/songs/pripetshek/mw.html. 203.214.7.136 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)paramucho

"AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies" article says...

...it is #9, not #8? Mistake?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howcome? (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Schindler german?

In the movie it says he was Czechoslovakian,not german. Maybe i saw it differently, maybe he is a german that lived in Czechoslovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.2.244 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There were many ethnic Germans (who spoke German) living in Czechosolovakia. That was the excuse Hitler used for annexing part of the country, the Sudetenland, in 1938. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually,Oskar Schindler was from the Sudetenland (Brinnlitz-Zwittau) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.160.164 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Academy awards?

How come the list of all 7 awards is not found in article? --79.101.185.174 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Göth or Goeth?

This article uses Göth, as does the Wikipedia article on Amon Göth. However, the IMDb entry for the movie as well as the movie's own web site use the spelling Goeth. As this is an article about the movie and very clearly the movie prefers "Goeth", shouldn't that be the way it is spelled in this article? Thoughts? Jbarta (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the movie, I agree that the spelling should be as in the movie.--Parkwells (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schindler's List/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I'll be conducting this article's GA review. From a quick glance, I already see that quite a bit of work is needed in order for it to properly cover all of the criteria. However, because the film (and therefore its article) is so very notable, I'm hoping that the main contributors here will work diligently to raise it to GA standards. All comments/suggestions will be listed in bullet format, so feel free to reply to each one as they are individually addressed. María (habla conmigo) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

There are several clean-up tags listed in this article, which actually puts it in danger of being quickfailed. Again, I'm hoping that this can be taken care of during the review process. I moved the tags to the top of the page as per normal placement; "tags" is not a viable header.
The lead section does not currently fulfill WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article. I would say that it could be expanded to three or four meaty paragraphs once all expansion/etc. is completed.
The plot is too long. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." This film does not, in my opinion, have too complicated of a plot, so I would suggest aiming for between 400 and 700.
Is the cast section necessary if a majority of the actors/characters are already listed in the plot summary? From what I gather, if there is one, there's no need for the other.
Some of the quotes throughout "Production" do not have citations.
Watch the overlinking; Schindlerjuden is linked at least three times, twice in one paragraph, for example.
Although a great idea, the "Symbols" section is skimpy and seemingly random. It needs an introductory paragraph, something that introduces the importance of the various symbols in the film. Also, are there really only two worth mentioning? I'm honestly curious.
No section on "Themes"?

This is the most important issue: I'm a little concerned about the caliber of the references. With better refs comes better research. Since this is such an important film, there is actually a nice selection of academic sources available out there. I did a quick search at Worldcat, and I found some works that may be useful; incorporation of just two or three would instantly raise this article's status. Here is just a sampling that are available even at my dinky uni's library:

Fensch, Thomas. Oskar Schindler and His List: the Man, the Book, the Film, the Holocaust and its Survivors. Forest Dale, Vt.: Paul S. Eriksson, 1995.
Loshitzky, Yosefa. Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler's List. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.
Mintz, Alan L. Popular Culture and the Shaping of Holocaust Memory in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001.
Palowski, Franciszek. The Making of Schindler's list: Behind the Scenes of an Epic Film. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group, 1998.

Okay, so those are the major things that stand out without prose nitpicking. Once the above issues have been addressed satisfactorily, I'll move into close-reading/copy-editing mode. For now I'm putting this article on hold. If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing this article due to inactivity. I hope to see it improve and expand before its next nomination at GAC. María (habla conmigo) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this article is insane and irresponsible

in the book that the movies is based upon it says that this story is a work of fiction. and this article starts off by saying that it is a true account. it isnt true. its a false story. so why is it offered here as being true? Statesboropow (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What a rude title. :P The book might be marketed as historical fiction, because it dramatised history. Schindler did save 1100 Jews you know. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the film, not the book. What matters is what the disclaimer in the rolling credits of the film says. Jay (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what this person is saying is it didn't happen. Well it did. Biographical films can take liberties, but this is based on a historical event. This topic opening was either poorly phrased or just wrong. Alientraveller (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the boy that the commandant commander was shooting at in the film and killed actually survived. Amon Goeth didnt shoot anyone from the balcony of his house because he had no view of the camp from that location. there is also a scene where it shows little children being led into a building and then the camera pans up and shows smoke coming out of the chimney. is this to suggest that children were thrown into a furnace? and if this was an extermination camp, why is there no scene in the movie that shows people being gassed? the book is fiction and the film is fiction and passing it off as anything else like the director of this movie did is insane and irresponsible. Statesboropow (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Spielberg is insane and irresponsible? ~~False alarm, I thought you were trying to improve the article, not insult everyone just because there were showers in concentration camps.~~ Actually, I should have known this from the uncivil header and never responded in the first place. LOL! Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

who said there werent showers there? but there were no gas chambers used to kill anyone. Statesboropow (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

are you actually trying to deny the use of gas in the death camps? i can tell you i have been to Majdanek and i have seen the left over canisters myself, i have seen the blue tinge on the walls and ceiling where the gas reacted with the lead paint. Colt .55 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have, both seen the film and read the book, and you see differences, you can create a "Differences from the book" section in the article. For reference see such sections in these films: Congo, and some from the Harry Potter series Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban, Philosopher's stone, Chamber of Secrets.

If you feel many of the events depicted in the book are inaccurate, you can discuss this at Talk:Schindler's Ark. Jay (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add such a section, as they typically become a haven for cruft/trivia. There's already quite a bit of work that needs to be done for this article to fulfill the Good Article criteria (see review above), although I fear it will have to be failed anyway if no work is done soon. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Information and commentary about decisions made in the adaptation process and their effects are valuable additions to the Production and Criticsm/Response sections. Relegating them to a section focused "differences" between the adaptation and its sources trivializes them and removes the context. If you find anything significant about the film and its development — appropriately sourced — merge it into those sections. This adds so much more to the article than the onanistic process of listing unimportant details.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a true account, Schindler was a real person. All the people the film depicts him saving were real too. the people seen at the end of the film (spoiler) are not actors, they are the real people. to deny the validity of this film is to deny the holocaust, which exremely offends a lot of people. Colt .55 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Squeamish

I changed the controversy section's phrase describing Christian fundamentalists as having been "squeamish" to being "critical of the film," as I thought squeamish might be a bit of a value judgement on those groups. I'm not a part of one of these groups, but it didn't seem like an objective description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.9.155 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a work of fiction.

and that needs to be in the first paragraph. i updated it. i know i will catch hell for that. Statesboropow (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no need to state that explicitly because the word "novel" is sufficient to state that it is not a historical account. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

then why is it passed off as being true? Statesboropow (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it? JFW | T@lk 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i have read the book. the 'fiction' does not just mean a work of imagination where the characters are not real. fiction also means a dramatised story or narravitve as apposed to non-fiction which is documentative or factual this means when the book says its fiction, it means it does not mean to say it isnt real. it means to say that it is a dramatised account of true events, rather than a timeline of facts concerning the subject.

all the events and characters in the book and film are real, they happened. maybe the dialogue and the screenplay is dramatised, but otherwise if you bothered at all to do any proper research you will find the truth for yourself.

and before you ask me if i have done research, then yes, i have been to Plaszow, i have been to Amon Göth's house.Colt .55 (talk)

oh, so Goeth did shoot that boy from the balcony of a house that in real life had no view of the inmate areas? and they did take children down into a room and threw them into a furnace as is "dramatized" in the movie? the movie is Hollywood, pure and simple Statesboropow (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Listen, are you trying to say the death camps are a lie, that 6 million Jews and millions of other people didnt actually die? Where's half my family, you bastard? Did they just get lost? I know people who were there, and watched their siblings die. So dont try to say it didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.207.32 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

six million jews did not die in world war two. the death toll at auschwitz was revised to 1.1 million down from 4 million in the late 1990's, so the six million figure is and has been dead for years. Statesboropow (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we really don't need to turn this into a holocaust denial debate. The film is dramatized, but is based on true sources in the sense that the creators of the film did not make it all up. Save your conspiracy theories for the page on the holocaust, not one on a film about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.9.155 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the Holocaust denier who started this absurd rant about Schindler's List being fiction has been banned from Wikipedia. His talk page is very interesting to read. -OberRanks (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out inconsistencies in the film is not equal to holocaust denial. One person above may be a holocaust denier, but he raises valid points. Spielberg and nearly everyone involved with the film are very, very Jewish with strong emotions toward the events depicted. Naturally some of Spielberg's thoughts and emotions influenced the film. The movie would be very very different if Mel Gibson had directed. All Wikipedians need to accept that Spielberg, for better or worse, made "his" film, "his" masterpiece. This film is "not-quite" history, and Spielberg admits it. This movie is all about not forgetting the Holocaust, so it is propaganda. Same as Leonard Nimoy's movie about Mel Melman. No one should take this film as history itself, but if it helps to get people interested in the real history that really happened, then it serves it's purpose, as Spielberg intended. As with anything, including Mein Kampf, or anything by Marx & Engels, if you don't like it, don't read it. No one's forcing you at gunpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The individual who started this thread was banned from Wikipedia for making Holocaust denial statements and spouting anti-Jewish statements not only on this article but also other articles as well. You're welcome to your opinion about the film, but I don;t think we need to get into defending that person. -OberRanks (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Only Jews

It was a long time since I watched this film, so correct me if I'm wrong. But why did he only save jews? What about the gypsies, communists, homosexuals, political opponents etc? Did the real Schindler also only save jews? Why was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Haha, yeah. You should try asking that simple, genuine question on the IMDB forums and watch yourself be shouted down as "anti-semitic" for daring to point out that while Jews were killed, they were not the only group to be targeted or the only group to be executed in the same concentration camp/gas extermination ways. Pretty much bigotry really. 203.171.199.159 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Only a guess, but probably because the Jewish workers were the ones he could get cheap (see the beginning of the movie), so that was who was laboring in his factory. The inhabitants of the Krakow Ghetto, and later the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp were, to my understanding all Jewish. I doubt political opponents and communists would not have been trusted in an armament factory, also. 69.115.19.58 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jews were the one laboring in his factory as workers from the ghetto, and they were the ones with whom he became involved. Yes, there were other groups who were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis. It just happened those were not groups Schindler was involved with.--Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the Schindler's List article, not about general feelings about Jewish people or actions in the Middle East. There are plenty of other articles about that. As for the original point, Schindler *was* only involved with Jewish forced labor since he set up his first factory within walking distance of a Jewish ghetto. This is why we dont see other victims of the Holcoaust working in his factory. As for the point about Jewish denials that there were other victims, I think there is more than enough evidence that this is not the case. A trip to the Holocaust Memorial Museum will show this quite well since there is an entire wing of the place devoted to non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. But, as said before, this is off track since this talk page should only be used for improving the current article. -OberRanks (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Goeth Portrayal

The article says Goeth was portrayed as being too much of a villain. However, Leon Leyson says the opposite was true. I think this should be added to the article. Here is the link. http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_B_hanukkah06.32a5802.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.60.105 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Leo John was very much a real person

I happened to notice that a few months ago a gang of folks got a hold of the Leo John article and changed it to say he was a fictional character and then later redirected it here, effectively blanking it. For now, that probably is the best thing to do, but I would like to state Leo John IS a real person and was stationed as Amon Goeth's assistant. Leo John's SS record is available at the National Archives in College Park although there is virtually nothing in it (a cover page and one or two sheets of misc correspondence). I should add Rudolf Czurda's record is in the same state and doesnt even have that much. But anyway, Leo John isnt fictional and was a real person. Just wanted to set the record straight. -OberRanks (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Amon Goeth's guns did not fire after the hinge scene

When Schindler made an attempt to show his "gratitude" for returning his workers,Schindler threw a party for Goeth which included a dozen women and champagne. While Goeth was "having his way" with one of these women,Schindler most likely took both guns and either changed the clips containing duds or damaging both guns firing mechanisms.So as Goeth repeatedly attempted to shoot(because he did'nt make enough hinges) Rabbi Levertov,Goeth became furious and "pistol whipped" him which ultimately spared him from certain death.In the following scene,Stern informs him of this incident.Schindler replies;"So the man can turn out a hinge in less than a minute,why the long story?" As Schindler lights his cigarette.Schindler then places the lighter in his pocket and then removes it from his pocket and hands it over to Stern, but the lighter fails to work. The failing lighter shows the evidence of Schindler's actions or intentions.Why would Schindler want to take the risk in disabling Goeth's guns? Goeth,like Schindler was somewhat of a womanizer but Goeth also was a heavy drinker.In addition to those facts, he was a psychotic murderer.When Schindler witnessed the "liquidation of the ghetto" he also seen Goeth murder by shooting several victims. Later, Schindler after meeting with some of his fellow war profiteers,such as Julius Madritch(who also attempted to save his jewish workers,he did save some jews to a much lesser degree than Schindler)he met with Amon Goeth. Schindler knew Goeth would shoot workers without reason or provocation or insubordination.And Goeth did this on a daily basis.Oskar Schindler had a discussion with Goeth and clearly informs him that "every worker that is shot costs me money". So, when Goeth gave Schindler his workers,in an exchange for money.Schindler threw the party giving him women and wine and champagne.However,in fear that one of his workers would get shot by Goeth(any of them)Schindler, who knew he shot workers daily,in hopes of sparing the lives of any of his workers, while Goeth was in a drunken stupor Schindler,at a great risk of being caught by Goeth,He most likely installed in both guns a clip full of duds that looked like "live" ammunition. Similar references was his Brinnlitz factory where later in the war, he decided to make artillary shells.Stern informs Schindler of the army's angry complaints.Schindler replies; "Stern,if this factory ever produces a shell that can actually be fired,Ill be very unhappy."bmaddrums@comcast.net(71.54.160.164 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Interesting theroy but pure speculation. That could never be added to the article without some kind of source. One could just say Goth's guns jammed because of something stuck in them, worn down parts, whatever. Even if Schindler has disabled Goth's guns, Goth could very easily just take a weapon from one of his SS guards (as he does in the "chicken scene") and murder the Jew that way. As far as the lighter, I think the scene in question shows that Schindler is offering his solid gold lighter as a bribe to get the rabbi into his factory. So, good idea, but I dont think we can add such things to the article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes,but two completely different guns?And it happened to both of them at the same time.Strangely unlike the chicken scene,Goeth did not borrow any weapon(s)from his other two henchmen(who were also armed)As for the lighter, notice Schindler is able to light his cigarette but fails when he handed it to Stern.It is also possible that Schindler had two identical lighters in his pocket and possibly switched them when he went in his pocket.And he could of done the same thing with the guns clips.bmaddrums@comcast.net(71.54.160.164 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)) The only source was from the film itself.By paying close attention to detail.For example;Schindler's body language.Notice his body movements as he reaches in his pocket(not many people look down sharply at their pocket)carefully watch Schindler light his cigarette and place the lighter in his pocket and watch when he then removes it again. In Goeth's scene,when after the luger fails,notice how the camera does a close up on Goeth's right side pocket as he removes the conventional automatic pistol.And we all know the combination of Schindler,Goeth and all those women and alcohol.With the both guns failing and the lighter failing,if you think about it,there is a common ground.Amon Goeth's both guns failed after that party but not before.You will be surprised how many people do not know both guns did'nt fire,nor can they figure out why. But putting the scenes in sequence and combining close attention to detail gave me that theory. It says nothing about it in the book. You are right,it is a pure speculation but indeed a reasonable one.bmaddrums@comcast.net(71.54.160.164 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

I have a question about the ending of Schindlers list

At the end of the movie when the Real survivors were shown visiting Oscars grave, they were placing stones on his grave...what is the significance of the stones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that placing stones on graves is a common usage. I don't know the exact meaning but I'm sure if you google it or search some grave/cemetery-related wiki pages you will find the answer. Dollvalley (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's common usage among Jews to put little stones on graves, not flowers. It's an old tradition. Some reasons may be that flowers need tending and changing, while Jews could never be sure whether they would still be there later on to tend their graves. N.B., Jewish graves are never exhumed, so they stay in their place for centuries. For both reasons, stones are just more practical. (I'm not Jewish myself, that's what I heard about it.) Lumendelumine (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Schindler's Wife

Not as depicted in the film, but her view of the film as being "packed with lies". See here. Perhaps that should be indicated under the 'Reception' heading. I tried appropriate terms in google news archive (1996), but the results are mostly pay-to-view (bah!), and not many results at that. Anyway it's curiously under-reported. Hakluyt bean (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Remved paragraphs from "Plot" section

I removed the following from the "Plot" section, because these paragraphs aren't about the plot. Furthermore, they are written in a rather confusing style and seem to contain quite a bit of original research, as well. --Baumi (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DELETED PARAGRAPHS START:

One of the most interesting scenes was with the girl in the red jacket. The scene used only color in the red and a birds eye view of a horrific situation were the Jews had to face, the just positioning codes were throughout the movie apart from the scene were it was black and white and they used it on the most important scene to outline the movie point. A young angelic girl walking through a town, watching people getting brutally butchered creates sympathy and anger at the same time. The scene was an example of a symbolic code and shows a good use of just positioning.

One example is the technical codes in the movie which was in 3 minutes, where Oskar moves into his new luxurious house and forces the Jews that lived there while all the Jews are forced into small cramped rooms in the ghetto. This scene easily outlines the unjust treatment the Germans inflicted to the Jews. This scene was a perfect example of the use of technical code to create an audience response.

The German man calmly playing a beautiful and complex song known as the Prelude to Bach’s English Suite in A minor. The interesting thing about this is that it’s showing the horrific scene where German officers are hunting these scared and starving Jews while there’s a song being played by a German officer. You can hear the just positioning between the calming notes being played by the unsympathetic officer, followed by horrific screams from Jews being massacred in their hidden places.

Juxtaposition was also used in the film during the naked scenes; it showed us the difference in freedom which the Germans and Jews had. The reason for this is because the Germans could do whatever they pleased when the Jews couldn’t do anything, because they were forced to obey any order they were given, it would usually show as a beautiful woman with a German man shortly after or shortly before sex.

Schindler’s list was an unusual daring film that unlike other films that aim at the same kind of feeling, it used black and white in a way that would enhance the film rather than make people think B grade. Strangely enough using black and white was a good idea the makers used because it fully outlined the symbolic codes (objects, settings, costume, facial expressions, and body language) technical codes (camera angles, movement, editing, sequencing, lighting, and special FX) audio codes (musical score, incidental music, sound FX, and background dialog) therefore using black and white was an excellent way of making the film codes so much more powerful and the music portrayed was unique and had an original feel which could not be explained even through an pathological vocabulary.

DELETED PARAGRAPHS END

Dark Comedy?

Is this an accurate statement? This does not appear to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.27.82 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No sector about inaccuracy

The movie is indeed great, however, there still are some inaccuracy. So nobody to add the sector about all the inaccuracy appeared in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.129.192.111 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For example it could be mentioned, that the character of Stern did not exist in this way but was an amalgam of three different people (Stern, Mietek Pemper and Abraham Bankier), one of them actually being Stern. For example, the scene where he was rescued from the train by Schindler did not happen to Stern and he was also not Goeth's stenographer. Furthermore, the list was devised by Marcel Goldman. Stern was created as Schindler's alter ego for the film for dramatic and storytelling purposes. I am very surprised that this is not mentioned here or in Stern's own Wikipedia article. My information is from the German Wikipedia site about Itzhak Stern. Because of their non-existance in the film, the role of these other men is not as known to the wider public as Stern's. ^[1]^[2]^[3]

Another inaccuracy is, in my opinion, the protrayal of Emilie Schindler, who visited Krakau twice a week and moved there in 1941, while in the film she was hardly ever around. She was actively involved and she also saved about 120 Jews destined for the concentration camps. I think it should be mentioned that she did have a much greater role than portrayed in the film. This information is from her German and English Wikipedia pages. ^[4]^[5]

I think it might be important to mention these things because many people - as can be seen in the comments - seem to think that the events happened exactly as portrayed in the film and that the people portrayed existed exactly the way they did in the movie. When they come to this site, they should be able to learn that this was not always the case. And this is neither surprising nor bad since this is a movie and not a documentary and these decisions were made by the writer and the director for dramatic purposes - which made it a great film. This is completely legitimate. However, I expect from a Wikipedia page to inform about these kinds of decisions. 84.146.113.141 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Sara Ok then I am adding section of "historical Inaccuracies" in this page. This film was obviously not potraying even ts as they occoured, Stern was given the role of three people to add intensity and emotion in the film. Otherwise the film wouldn't have been as dramatic and effective as it was. But people have to know the "true" story. Please make necessary edits to the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.172.89 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

another interesting point

there are no scenes in which anyone was gassed. I thought the crux of the holocaust was that six million jews died in gas chambers. this is the "Mecca" of holocaust films and there isn't one scene of anyone being gassed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.43 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but Spielberg's one "gas chamber" scene has the Jews THINKING they are going to be gassed, and then the Nazis offering them actual real showers (water and all) from which they all emerge unscathed. I dare say that this film, Spielberg's Schindler's List, will probably not only not serve the cause of educating people about the truth of the Holocaust (millions murdered in gas chambers at Aushwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Chelmno, Belzec, and Sobibor), but will in fact end up decades from now (mark my words) being used by Holocaust deniers and antisemites as THEIR propaganda tool. I lost all respect for Speilberg when I saw the shower scene. He should have stuck to Indiana Jones and stayed the heck away from the Holocaust. He's done far more harm than good with this project of his. For people who know the story of the Holocaust, the film is great. For people who do not know anything about the Holocaust (i.e. future generations) the film teaches that the Jews were sent to real showers at Aushwitz. Sorry fans of Speilberg, panning over to the chimneys (of the actual gas chambers) does not educate anyone about the Holocaust, unless they already know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.53.189 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I would add one other point. If Spielberg really wanted to help educate about the Holocaust, he could have done something like adapting the book Death Dealer (written by Hoess - the Aushwitz Commandant!). Pointing out that the commandant of Aushwitz, already in prison under a death sentence admitted (with "pride") to gassing the Jews at Aushwitz, would have been a much better "historical" testament to leave to educate future generations about the Holocaust. I suspect though that Spielberg was less interested in educating people about the Holocaust than in telling the story of a gentile who saved Jews, for his own personal reasons (whatever they may be). English majors: the subject of the last part of the previous sentence is deliberately ambiguous on my part (Spielberg, or Schindler, or both?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.53.189 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirekt from List of famous Jews

Searching for a "List of famous Jews" it should be really a list of famous jews displayed, and not schindlers List... ~~ourima —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.226.146 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Polish Jews" in the header (not only)

If you look at the list of Schindlerjüden both in the partial list on wikipedia as well as the complete list at Yad Vashem (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/pdf/shindlers_list.pdf), it is fairly clear that not all of the Schindlerjüden were Polish, the list includes Jews from Germany, Slovakia, Bohemia (Czech), Russia, Italy and elsewhere. Yes the list was about 90% Polish, but not all. Also, I don't believe that there is proof that all of them were Jewish. Some of them are listed as BV and PSV (types of Criminal) and one (Roger Michard) was listed as Sch./Fr. (Which indicates French Nationality, but *I think* the Sch means that they had a black badge which was a for anyone from Anarchists to Aristocrats. How do people feel about changing that to "Mostly Polish Jews"?Naraht (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

'Schindler’s List' typist dies at 91

This Israeli site: [[ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4080734,00.html Pemper]] tells that Mietak Pemper, the man who typed Oskar Schindler's famous list, which saved more than 1,000 Jews during the Holocaust, died last week in Augsburg, Germany, at age 91. 187.79.34.125 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)agre22

fictions

I was reading the article about the film "Catch Me if You Can" and it has a section about the fictional parts of the story. Seeing that this movie is based on a work of fiction, would it not be appropriate to have such a section in this article? A good example would be the execution of the Camp Commandant. He wasn't executed in a yard. He wasn't standing on a chair that was kicked out from under him. And he didn't proclaim "Heil Hitler" before his death. Would there be objection to having such a section in this article if I was to write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.205.205 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A good example of this would be the execution of the camp commandant. He wasn't hung in a square, he didn't have a chair kicked out from under his feet and he didn't proclaim "Heil Hitler" before it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.205.205 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality of the copy

There is still much awkward style in the writing of this article. It is an important article, (B-class/Film) and a sensitive subject: it is not as good as it should be. I can't think of a better way to end the sentence which currently uses the awkward word 'contemplatively'. I hope someone can. The verb contemplate is precise, but doesn't work as an adverb. Can the tense be changed to make it work or what other word would encapsulate Neeson's final state in the scene? --LeedsKing (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pensively? The Interior (Talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot Length

The article has been tagged for having an overly-long plot summary per WP:FILMPLOT, which suggests that film articles should generally have a length of 400-700 words. I've trimmed the summary from 1200+ words to ~850, which for a movie of this one's scope I would consider reasonable. I will note that FILMPLOT is a guideline; not a requirement. I would invite feedback from other editors - should additional material be trimmed to bring the article into compliance? Is this a reasonable plot summary for this film? If I don't hear from anyone within two weeks or so, I'll go ahead and remove the template. Thanks for your input! Doniago (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

[1] ttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Stern

[2] ttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mietek_Pemper

[3] ttp://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mietek_Pemper

[4] ttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilie_Schindler

[5] ttp://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Emilie_Schindler

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]